FLEET LOGIC, LLC VS. TWENTY6 LETTERS CORP.

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: VC065842    Hearing Date: November 24, 2020    Dept: C

FLEET LOGIC, LLC v. TWENTY6 LETTERS CORP., et al.

CASE NO.:  VC065842

HEARING:  11/24/20 @ 1:30 PM

JUDGE: JOHN A. TORRIBIO

#3

TENTATIVE ORDER

Defendants Tim and Paige Childress’s motions to compel further discovery are MOOT. Defendants partially withdrew the substantive part of the motions.

Request for sanctions is DENIED.

Plaintiff to give NOTICE.

Defendants Tim and Paige Childress move to compel further responses to discovery. On 10/6/20, Defendants partially withdrew their motions because supplemental responses were provided. However, Defendants retain their request for sanctions.

The court finds that sanctions are not warranted in this instance because Plaintiff believed that discovery cut-off was 2/24/20. At that time, trial was set for 3/23/20, and discovery cut-off was 2/24/20.

On 2/24/20, the court granted Defendants’ request to continue trial “as set by Dept. F” and extended discovery to run with the continued trial date. However, at that time, Dept. F had not set a new trial date.

Due to Covid-19 and the court shut down, the trial date was not reset by Dept. F until 4/21/20, and discovery was then ordered to coincide with the new trial date.

Plaintiff thereafter served supplemental responses. In opposition, Plaintiff also requests sanctions against Defendants.

The court finds that substantial justification exists on both sides. At the time Plaintiff’s responses were due, it was unclear when discovery cut-off would take place. Defendants also had substantial justification because the court granted their request to continue trial and extend discovery cut-off, but due to extenuating circumstances, did not set a new trial date until 4/21/20.

Both parties’ requests for sanctions are DENIED.

Case Number: VC065842    Hearing Date: December 10, 2019    Dept: SEC

FLEET LOGIC, LLC v. TWENTY6 LETTERS CORP., et al.

CASE NO.:  VC065842

JUDGE: OLIVIA ROSALES

HEARING:  12/10/19

#10

TENTATIVE ORDER

Defendants Tim and Paige Childress’s motion to set aside and vacate ruling re sanctions is DENIED.

Plaintiff to give NOTICE.

Defendants Tim and Paige Childress move to set aside and vacate the ruling re sanctions pursuant to CCP 473.

The court may, upon any terms as may be just, relieve a party or his or her legal representative from a judgment, dismissal, order, or other proceeding taken against him or her through his or her mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect. (CCP 473(b).)

Defendants contend that their previous motions to quash were not made in bad faith and that the court “completely disregarded the operative motion itself.” (Motion, 4:25.) Defendants are essentially disagreeing with the court’s prior order. Such does not establish mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect. Further, even if this motion is construed as a motion for reconsideration, the motion would be untimely. CCP 1008 requires that the motion be filed within 10 days of the order. The Order was issued on 10/10/19, but the motion was not filed until 11/8/19.

Further, Defendants contend the court denied their motions based solely on the lack of a separate statement. However, as this court stated in its 10/10/19 Order, Defendants did not attach the subpoenas at issue, and the court had no way of knowing what documents are being demanded or objected to. For this reason, the motions were denied. Defense counsel appeared at the hearing and failed to address this court's concerns.

Accordingly, the motion is DENIED.